Ignorance is not bliss; it is cruelty.

For the past few years, I have showed the documentary Earthlings to my English composition courses. The class is the typical research composition course required in all universities, but my class focuses on humanity's relationship with non-human animals.  Earthlings offers an overview on that perspective so it fits well with the class.

 

Earthlings is not an easy film to watch.  Many students are horrified, appalled and revolted by the imagery and some have even left during the screening, despite it being the focus of the final exam.  In fact, one student’s mother complained to the department, and I was required to offer an alternative exam, much to my frustration.  While the documentary is disconcerting, I nevertheless feel it is critical to understanding the nature of our relationships with the animals, to make the “invisible visible” as Dr. Joy says in her presentation.

Prior to screening the film, the students have already read about the treatment of animals in a variety of contexts and thus have a basic understanding about how animals are raised as food, for example. However, something about seeing the treatment resonates far more than reading about it. I remember being asked why I have to show it, that I should be able to convey the say information without the revolting imagery in the documentary.  Would I, say, show pornographic films if I were focusing on human sexuality? A fair question, I suppose, the non sequitur and false analogy fallacies aside.

 Now I prepare the students before showing it to the class; there have not been any parental, or to my knowledge, student complaints since. After the showing, I ask the students, as I have always, whether the film should be shown.  Is it too disconcerting and uncomfortable? I know that it is a difficult to watch and perhaps I was not considering some important aspect.  After all, could I not accomplish the same goals without the film? In fact, I would alter my final exam if a significant portion of the students said that I should not show it, for whatever reason. That has not been the case.

The students are generally uniform in their responses-they say that I should continue showing it. It is an important reality-check, the say. Indeed, some assert that it should be shown in high school, the import so vital.  The film forces the viewers to re-evaluate humanity’s relationship with animals and ask some fundamental questions about us, humans. Does the treatment of animals in CAFO demonstrate who we are, why we are, or what we are? Most of us tacitly endorse what happens to the CAFO animals; sometimes we openly affirm it. So, then, why should we be conveniently shielded from what our behavior directly causes, supports and sustains?  Because it makes us sad, uncomfortable, sickened, and angry? Not really good reasons, seems to me, and fortunately, the students, at least in my classes, agree. 

"But who wants to look?" Joaquin Phonex, the film's somber narrator, asks. For animals, human ignorance is not bliss; it is cruelty.  Looking forces us to confront what we stand for. Do we think that what we do to animals is okay? It's quite simple. See Earthlings so that you might better align your values with your behavior, especially what you buy. To, as the film invites, "Make the connection." I hope my students do, as I have done.